- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Reciprocity is not a federal law being forced upon the states. It is forcing the states to honor eachother.
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Which right holds sway?
- Thread starter MarineTpartier
- Start date
I agree but I wasnt standing behind the link.
None the less security protocol exists.
No its not out I am asserting that guns are dangerous by design. Hence gun safety courses that you insist should be required.
The link simply shows that guns are dangerous objects or at least can be if not taken care of properly. I do not rust that everyone on my property can take the necessary care of their weapon or at least with some people I do not want gamble mine or other peoples liveson their care.
Please follow the leads there as a stating point. I linked that site for two reasons it consolidated things for me and it shows what the gun control nuts are working off of.
Then ignore the site that you cant seem tog et past and look up the indivusdual casses which are real trust me I looked them up. Or if you want to claim that no CCW permittee has killed anyone the first two links prove you wrong. In fact i can also point you to a mass murder by a CCW permittee.
My point is that just because there is a low amount of people legally carrying guns using them for violence does not mean that there are 0% of those people committing violent crimes with their guns.
Ok enough with your online psychology crap. Obviously you are not here to debate but to parrot the dogmatic talking pints of the NRA.
BTW I am not the one that is afraid to go anywhere without a gun.
The S. 2188: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012 is an an attempt to amend Federal law.
The acts purpose is to add to the Federal Laws already on the books.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.
So you guys are completely wrong. It is a Federal Law you cannot deny the the proven facts. Lol nice try though had I been some idiot I would have gone along with you.
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.
Try looking up title 18, United States Code hint it is a Federal Law geniuses. lol Perhaps you guys dont know enough about what you are talking about?
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
That reciprocity law doesn't appear to have anything to do with the FFaC clause.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The CCW is not federal. A state's CCW is not a federal regulatory program. Another state having to honor any state's CCW is not forcing that state to enforce a federal regulatory program. In fact, a state isn't even enforcing another state's regulatory program since a person with an out-of-state CCW must comply with all local ordinances.
If a CCW can carry into a bar in their home state, but goes to a state where guns in bars are prohibited, that CCW can't go into the bar armed in that other state. Ditto for any such restricted location.
If a CCW can carry open or concealed in their home state, but visits a state where only open carry is allowed, than that CCW may only carry open.
Therefore there is no enforced regulatory program.
This is how reciprocity already functions.
Last edited:
Ok progress now its a law. But you guys are stilling going off on a strawman argument since my point was in the first place that the NRA is drumming up Federal Laws to control what we can and cannot do under the 2nd Amendment. All that other stuff that I wrote that you refused to address was relevant to that point. I suspect that you guys are concentrating on the strawman arguments to lead me away from my claims that more Federal Laws pertaining to gun ownership will just open the door for more controls.
So while you are trying to first destroy Private property rights wile trying to preserve your gun rights you will pave the legal way of destroying our gun rights. I also wonder what other rights you are willing to trample on to get more gun rights?
When you keep applying band-aids instead of actually fixing the problem all that the band-aids can do is soak up the blood. Meaning that we need repeal laws not add laws left and right. You are just cementing in existing laws that we dont agree with. Hell Jerry you even back some of the provisions of these gun control laws.
Read this timeline: Federal Gun Control Legislation - Timeline — Infoplease.com It reads as if you are leading upto complete gun control and perhaps eventually complete gun bans. The only headway made since 1791 was in 2008. Outside of that all the so called victories of the NRA all are added laws to all the other things in the timeline save a couple local victories.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I oppose any such federal laws in both directions.
Also, what I've been saying is not a strawman because I've only been discussing the FFaC clause and how it would pertain to certain state laws.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
All you keep saying is "federal law = bad".
That's called the Legalistic Fallacy.
CCW reciprocity isn't going to lead to a gun ban any more than marriage reciprocity lead to marriage ban or drivers license reciprocity lead to a car ban.
These laws expand your choices. You aren't forced to do anything. If you don't like guns, don't own one, don't carry one, no problem, that's your choice. If you don't want to carry while at work, then don't, most Americans don't either. No problem.
Last edited:
Sorry about that it was actually addressed to Jerry. My bad.
Um I am not asserting that the Reciprocity Act of 2012 will cause hardship on gun owners. I asserted that the cumulative Federal Laws will give the legal base to make things hard for us. Its already too late since Amendments pushed by the NRA, show that the NRA supports Federals laws governing firearms.
You still are assuming that I somehow oppose firearms and CCW. I have never said anything of the sort. I have said now several times that I am a gun owner and that I fully support the 2nd Amendment. I am asserting that the tactics that the NRA are using are bad tactics to say the least. It is my opinion that it would be better to steadfastly protect the 2nd Amendment rather than spend millions of dollars playing into the hands of the gun control nuts. The main problem are Federal Laws that are already on the books. We will never be able to repeal those laws if we add to them and go on campaigns that in reality make all gun owners look bad. You already let it be known in this conversation that parking lot laws are only a beginning. The goal you said was to be able to carry a gun anywhere that a gun owner wants too. Do you really think thats going to be obtainable. If it is obtainable it will come with a cost to liberties. The first being who exactly can own a gun. I am saying this because if you can take a gun anywhere the only way that you will get that goal is by banning certain types of guns and banning certain people form owning guns. That is called gun control. And that is exactly where the NRA is headed. Which explains why they are not actually fighting the more important Federal Laws and are going off on pet projects like forcing business owners to allow guns on their property.
But It is obvious that you believe otherwise so I will just leave it at that and disagree with.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 21,004
- Reaction score
- 10,102
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I cannot and will not go there. I know you are trying to be able to protect yourself whereever you are. I understand and sympathize. And even partialy agree. But the law the NRA proposes is foolish. I believe the second amendment applies to ALL. This includes anybody not incarcerated. If you are not in someones custody you are free to defend yourself as you see fit. Thats the way I see it. The law the NRA proposes further limits your rights to keep and bear arms by defining who can or cant be armed. This compounds the situation we have as it stands now. The only law that is required is the ability to sue for damages if a publicy accessable place is inadequetly defended and someone is damaged by this inadequesy, if property owners decide not to allow arms. That is as far as I would be willing to go as far as law. We have too many as is. Reciprocity should be adjudicated. The basis of our society is property rights. We must preserve ALL our rights without damaging them. This requires balance in our thinking. How do we accomidate BOTH the person who wishes to be armed and the property owner. It is a delicate balance that requires compromise on BOTH sides to achieve the goals of BOTH sides. This is why I go with tort law and reciprocity instead of the NRA's frankly clumsy attempt at universal carry. The person who wishes to be armed has a duty acceed to the wishes of the property owner, and the property owner has a duty if they dont allow carry to protect the people who come onto their property. This should only apply to publically accessable property IE business goverment building ect.
As far as strict scutiny goes I don't think that even applies in this case.
That be my take for the day.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
More "Federal law = bad".
You aren't explaining how, and on the rare occasion you provide sources, they're not credible or authoritative, or they have nothing to do with the topic (military instalations and the brady bill, for example, have nothing to do with this thread).
Once again, reciprocity is not a federal law. Guns-in-cars laws aren't Federal, either. Guns-at-work wouldn't be a Federal law, but yes we're willing to take it there if need be.
That's all you've been saying this whole time, that you don't trust the average CCW despite all the sourced evidence debasing your concerns, and that you should have some ability to arbitrarily deny an employee or customer their right to self defense without a need or just cause.
That's about as anti-2A as gets, even more-so than the Brady Bill since the Brady Bill still allowed you to carry something.
You may be willing to agree to disagree, but I'm not. Agreeing to disagree means allowing the difference to exist. We're not leaving the issue alone, we're pressing forward. You can retract your hand, I'll not be shaking it.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
My body is my property. While in the public domain (employment and commerce) even the police must have a damn good reason to infringe on my rights. A private realestate owner isn't even a cop to then be able to use 'probable cause' and infringe upon me without a warrant.
Laws supporting your ability to ban guns must conform to Strict Scrutiny, and this means you personally must have a demonstratable "need". Gun owners have such a need and can demonstrate it, to then be in compliance with Strict Scrutiny and thus infringe upon a land owner's right to control their property.
The second part of Strict Scrutiny is the law must be narrowly tailored, as narrow as possible. This means while an employee or customer may carry a gun for self defense, this is limited to pistols which are concealed. We wouldn't be allowed to carry just whatever we felt like and how ever we felt like carrying it. The property owner can still disallow rifles (might sound strange for non-hunting states where a good number of trucks have rifle racks). The property owner can still enforce uniform/dress-code. Our ability to carry a gun would not be a free license to do just whatever we want on your property. You are still very much in control.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 21,004
- Reaction score
- 10,102
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Did you read what I wrote? It doesent seem like you did. You have the right to carry in public as you please. The problem occurs on others property. The key is the police need a warrent, private property owners dont. You are on their turf in their domain, with their permission subject to their rules. On others property you can be searched and ejected by the private property owner leagaly. Employers have the right to eject you from their premisis and search your person on their property. Store owners have the same rights. They have signs posted all over were I live. They dont even need probale cause. If you dont believe me consult an attorny. Apperntly you think I am for banning guns. There should be NO restrictions to who can own arms so long as they are not in anothers custody. This would include felons. In the eyes of the court property rights outweigh gun rights at this current juncture. You cannot disregard property rights without repurcusion for other rights. Once you go down the path of diregarding one set of rights over another none of your rights will be worth anything. Property owners must retain control of their property, gun owners need to be able to carry. The only way that will be able to be balaneced is though tort law. IE the property owner must provide adequete security or allow people to carry. If done otherwise both rights will be eroded. The NRA will destroy what they are trying to protect if they continue the route of forcing property owners to accomidate CCW's. There a lot of reasons people are not allowed to carry on private property the prime one though being liability. That will need to be addressed before people will accept CCW holders willingly.
Oh dear complete denial of given facts you couldnt be anymore dogmatic than that. Should I explain to you again? Its the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012 which its only legal purpose is to amend a Federal law. You cannot just pretend things to go along with your claims, not when I have proven this simple fact already.
And whats wrong with Federal Laws? Are you for real man? How about Federal gun control for starters? The way they would do that is through Federal Law. Obviously I am not saying that we should get rid of all Federal Laws but certainly you can see the wisdom of not letting the Federal Government have too much power right? Probably not so I will just tell you. Federal Laws = gun control.
BTW the NRA is just another civil rights group trying to force society to conform with their demands. The 2nd Amendment is a universal right and should treated as such. Civil rights groups only represent a section of society. I say that the 2nd Amendment is unmovable and therefor should not be treated as movable. But the NRA will concede the 2nd Amendment to pass laws that do not need to exist since the 2nd Amendment exists in their place already.
No I have not! I have made it clear that I reserve the right to decide who I trust. Federal Laws that force me to trust people puts everyone in danger. If I cannot decide for myself who poses a threat I am powerless to stop the threat legally and must act outside of the law to save my life and others lives.
And the Brady Bill is ****. And your argument is becoming exceedingly strawman.
If you keep denying reality I will just write you off as a fanatic who is a threat to the 2nd Amendment. I do not expect you to agree with me. I realize that people have different points of view but I do expect people to honestly engage in conversation. Your continued denial of proven facts plus the fact that you cannot seem to argue anything but strawman arguments tells me that it is pointless to continue the conversation with you.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
When you open your private land to the public, it is public, even while it remains privately owned. The is true because private land opened to the public is subject to public accommodation. You surrendered a level of sovereignty when you engaged in commerce.
You have to have a Guard Card and be employed as a Guard on the property in order to search any kind of visitor, and even then only for weapons after being legally detained. If an employer or business owner feels someone needs to be serched, they are obligated to call the police. Upon arriving, the police are required to establish 'probable cause' before searching you, otherwise they have to get a warrant. A private property owner does not have a right to search an employee's person or personal property, to include bag, purse, or car (see aforementioned guns-in-cars law).
See also:
The Pearl Law Firm: Workplace Serches
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
I can go along with that.
If a property owner feels they need to maintain and sterile aria, and they provide licensed (Guard Card or legit LEO) armed security, great. No problem, the gun stays in the car, unloaded and locked.
However, the other side of that coin is that if the property owner doesn't provide legit armed security, then employees and customers would have the right to carry no matter how much the private owner doesn't like it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I don't believe Tort law can resolve the reciprocity issue, however. IMO that falls squarely under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
I belong to a couple gun-enthusiast forums. Every once in a while someone makes a thread talking about where they live and where they want to take a vacation. The topic of such threads is to provide information and advice on how to plan the road trip: which states honor OP's CCW, which don't; if there's a duty to inform police here, but not there; if 'no guns' signs have force in this state but not that state, then OP might plan to stop for dinner in the more agreeable state. One OP had to pass though IL no matter what, as I90 East was the absolute best way...so OP decided to mail his weapon to his destination, and mail it back when he was coming home.
Occasionally a suggestion is made for OP to make or acquire a colored map of the US, showing which states have what laws. On this map, IL and CA are not color-coded, they are cut out completely.
Exorsizing the 2A shouldn't involve this much bull****.
I belong to a couple gun-enthusiast forums. Every once in a while someone makes a thread talking about where they live and where they want to take a vacation. The topic of such threads is to provide information and advice on how to plan the road trip: which states honor OP's CCW, which don't; if there's a duty to inform police here, but not there; if 'no guns' signs have force in this state but not that state, then OP might plan to stop for dinner in the more agreeable state. One OP had to pass though IL no matter what, as I90 East was the absolute best way...so OP decided to mail his weapon to his destination, and mail it back when he was coming home.
Occasionally a suggestion is made for OP to make or acquire a colored map of the US, showing which states have what laws. On this map, IL and CA are not color-coded, they are cut out completely.
Exorsizing the 2A shouldn't involve this much bull****.
Last edited:
Searches and Seizures
An employer has the right to inspect personal belongings (bags, purses, briefcases, cars, lockers, desks, etc.), except when the employer has created a reasonable expectation of privacy. These expectations can be raised if the employee is given a key to a desk or if the employer 4has disseminated a written policy explicitly stating that it will not make such inspections.
Employee Privacy Law & Legal Definition
Which means that unless the employer makes rules that allow privacy an employee has no legal privacy at work. Many workplaces are not public spaces or even semi-public spaces. And the size of the shop or place of employment have different legal definitions. A restaurant with fewer than 50 seats in most states can out right refuse to serve you. A small mom and pop type shop can through you out for no other reason than they wanted you gone from their property.
In McDonalds the lobby in a public space but the kitchen, backroom and offices are not public spaces. These non public space are private spaces despite the fact that employees are allowed to go into these spaces.
The question of whether an employee can be told whether they can have a gun stored in their car depends on if the parking lot is a public, semi-public or private space. If the parking lot is a public space and the laws of that state allow guns in public spaces then there is no problems with having a gun there. But if the parking area is not public then the property owner tell the person with the gun to beat it of their property that is if the property owner does not make the expatiation of privacy in their rules given for people being on the property. The reason that a parking lot law is being pushed serves one reason which is to force property owners to allow guns in private areas not public or semi-public areas.
Also a shop owner can tell a patron to leave the property if the patron is engaged in activity that the shop was not designed for. A shop owner can also tell a patron to leave if they have over stayed the normal amount of time that the average patron spends on the property.
In my shop/my workplace I have no public parking, it is all private parking space. At most I have at times 5 employees (most of the time perhaps one if I can afford it at the time) which means that even under the parking lot laws I am exempt form having to allow a person to carry a gun no matter what permit they may be carrying. On my gate I have a sign that clearly states private property authorized personal only. So if I hire a contractor to do some work my sign already expresses my desire to keep all of my property private. My employees have no right to be armed no matter the parking lot laws. So I am satisfied at this point that the NRA has not yet screwed my liberties. The problem is that the NRA are opening the door that allows the Government to dictate gun laws. So I will continueto oppose the NRA's push for more Federal regulations on gun owners and property owners.
An employer has the right to inspect personal belongings (bags, purses, briefcases, cars, lockers, desks, etc.), except when the employer has created a reasonable expectation of privacy. These expectations can be raised if the employee is given a key to a desk or if the employer 4has disseminated a written policy explicitly stating that it will not make such inspections.
Employee Privacy Law & Legal Definition
Which means that unless the employer makes rules that allow privacy an employee has no legal privacy at work. Many workplaces are not public spaces or even semi-public spaces. And the size of the shop or place of employment have different legal definitions. A restaurant with fewer than 50 seats in most states can out right refuse to serve you. A small mom and pop type shop can through you out for no other reason than they wanted you gone from their property.
In McDonalds the lobby in a public space but the kitchen, backroom and offices are not public spaces. These non public space are private spaces despite the fact that employees are allowed to go into these spaces.
The question of whether an employee can be told whether they can have a gun stored in their car depends on if the parking lot is a public, semi-public or private space. If the parking lot is a public space and the laws of that state allow guns in public spaces then there is no problems with having a gun there. But if the parking area is not public then the property owner tell the person with the gun to beat it of their property that is if the property owner does not make the expatiation of privacy in their rules given for people being on the property. The reason that a parking lot law is being pushed serves one reason which is to force property owners to allow guns in private areas not public or semi-public areas.
Also a shop owner can tell a patron to leave the property if the patron is engaged in activity that the shop was not designed for. A shop owner can also tell a patron to leave if they have over stayed the normal amount of time that the average patron spends on the property.
In my shop/my workplace I have no public parking, it is all private parking space. At most I have at times 5 employees (most of the time perhaps one if I can afford it at the time) which means that even under the parking lot laws I am exempt form having to allow a person to carry a gun no matter what permit they may be carrying. On my gate I have a sign that clearly states private property authorized personal only. So if I hire a contractor to do some work my sign already expresses my desire to keep all of my property private. My employees have no right to be armed no matter the parking lot laws. So I am satisfied at this point that the NRA has not yet screwed my liberties. The problem is that the NRA are opening the door that allows the Government to dictate gun laws. So I will continueto oppose the NRA's push for more Federal regulations on gun owners and property owners.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The moment an employer touches me against my will, it's assault.
AN employer can only touch an employee within the legal bounds of the law. Which in most cases is never unless the employee gives permission or if there is a medical need. Or if there is a security need. If an employee is damaging property or life and limb then an employer is obligated to act to stop the employee under liability laws. The employer has an right to protect the property of course there are legal limits. Like if an employee is destroying property you cannot kill them etc.
If there are no rules or contracts saying otherwise an employer can request a search of your personal space. If you refuse the employer may request that you wait for law enforcement or you may want legal advice. Unless you are an employee with a contract or if their are rules that the employer made you can be fired on the spot for refusing a request of the employer as long as that request is legal. In the state of New Mexico as an employer if I have banned guns on my property where you are working I have the right to request a search of your personal space in order to see if you are complying with my rules. Of course you can legally refuse the search but I now have the power to fire you since there is no contract and you are working "at will". In fact a person working "at will" can be fired for any legal reason. Legally being that it does not against any anti-discrimination laws. If you still refuse to leave my property after you have been fired I can now call the police and bring trespassing charges against you. At that point the police will remove you from my property. But if you become unruly, belligerent, pose a threat in any way shape or form I can physically remove you from my property. If at any point your hand goes near your gun I can then pull a weapon on you and demand that you surrender the weapon at once. If you refuse I can then restrain and disarm you since you pose a direct threat to me and anyone nearby. I would not be able to do some of these things if you did not have a weapon on you unless you actually started attacking someone or something. But since you have a weapon you pose a threat by having the weapon in arms reach. Which is a legal requirement.
Now you can choose to not accept that what I just said is how the law works and request links but it really does not matter to me what you believe and how correct that you think I am, since I own my own business and must know my rights when it comes to my business. SO far I have only had minor disputes with employees things like no you cannot listen to your ipod and run machinery or tardiness or poor work ethic. But you also have to remember generally I have less than 5 employees at any given time, some federal employment laws do not apply to me since they have limits based on the number of employees. And like I said my entire property is private property there is no expatiation of it being open to the public. Like any other manufacturing plant large or small the property is private not public or semi-public. Which is why the NRA was only able in some states to gain a parking lot law if the parking lot was open to the public. The parking lots that are not open to the public are not covered by the law.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 21,004
- Reaction score
- 10,102
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I have run the course of my arguments. I have nothing new. I will let you and Freedomfromall go at it. I think I have explained as best I can why the NRA law is foolish. I am just going to have to agree to disagree Jerry. For the record you bring up valid points and good arguments its just that being the freedom loving guy I am, I just cant go where you are going. I guess it comes down to a mans got to do what mans got to do. C'est La'vie. It has been an interesting debate though. Thanks and cheers.
P.S I'll drop by and make a comment or two if I can bring somthing new.:drink
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You keep talking about the way things are as though I don't know. The way things are today is what my objections are based on, so restating the status quo doesn't advance the discussion.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm still completely in the dark on exactly how federal enforcement of reciprocity could in any way lead to gun restrictions.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Here's a perfect example of why property owners have nothing to fear from your typical licensed concealed weapons costomer or employee:
0.1884% does not constitute a need to maintain a gun-free zone, but it does establish the need to disallow arbitrary gun-free zones.
0.1884% does not constitute a need to maintain a gun-free zone, but it does establish the need to disallow arbitrary gun-free zones.
I would agree that property owners need not have a choice in the matter if the world was 100% safe. But the world is not 100% safe that is why people are running around with concealed weapons in the first place.